Too Many Laws

A quick online search reveals that an exact count of Federal Crimes is unknown.  There is the distinction between laws and the various regulations that inevitably sprout from those laws.  One estimate from 2015 stated that there were "at least 5,000 federal criminal laws, with 10,000-300,000 regulations."  It is the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce all these laws  However, as we have seen, there is a lot of wiggle room.  Obama opted to overlook immigration laws even while he enacted new laws like the Affordable Car Act and Dodd-Frank Act.  Even with the vast resources of the US government, only so much can be accomplished.  Thanks to this vast sea of laws, executive discretion has more impact than Congressional legislation.  Immigration law appears to flipped on a dime in the wake of Trump's inauguration but it is just that he has chosen to enforce laws that Obama put on the back burner.  Moreover, Trump has already put Obama's emphasis on Climate Change on the back burner.  One country, one set of laws, two dramatically different outcomes based on who occupies the White House.  To prevent these swings, we need to rollback the scope of the Federal Government.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment of Constitution

 

The Constitution grants no authority over education: Abolish Department of Education.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over healthcare: Abolish Department of Health and Human Services.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over farming: Abolish Department of Agriculture.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over labor: Abolish Department of Labor.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over housing: Abolish Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

The Constitution grants no authority over energy: Abolish the Department of Energy.

 

All of these departments were power grabs by the central government.  Homeland Security is the latest new department but at least there is authority granted in the Constitution for national defense.  Even so, we should abolish this one too.  Return it all to the states or the people and, if there is an actual need, they are more than capable of resolving it on the more local level.

 

Paring back the scope of government would dramatically limit the discretion of the executive.  Thus, a change in the head of state would have far less impact than it does today.

 

Based on 2009 numbers, the abolition of the above departments would result in $1.3 trillion in in savings and a reduction in the federal workforce of 560,000 people.  Let's see, divide 1.3 trillion by 330 million and you get $3,940 per person in the US.  Of course, the budget has gone way up since then so the dividend would be even bigger.

Repeal and DON'T Replace

I keep seeing these articles about how the Congress should repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  Though I favor the repeal, I don't see any need to replace.  Let free people figure out a solution to their problems, don't let government impose a solution.  When we look at areas that have seen the most involvement by government (e.g. healthcare or education), we see prices rising faster than inflation for decades.  However, in areas where government is less involved or practically absent (e.g. internet, computers, digital cameras), prices have plummeted.  This is not a coincidence.

 

Health insurance is not insurance.  Insurance is meant to offset risk.  Home insurance is not meant to provide a new paint job every few years or pay for new bulbs in light fixtures, or reimburse for the plumber unclogging the sink.  It is there to cover large but also unlikely expenses, such as the roof being torn off by a tornado or a fire.  Likewise, car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, gasoline, or new windshield wipers.  Car insurance is for rare events like a crash that causes thousands of dollars in damage.  However, with health 'insurance,' it is expected to cover annual physicals, flu shots, and virtually every visit to a medical professional.  It isn't paying for unexpected costs but rather it is covering all costs.  Health insurance needs to turn back into insurance.  Insurance would cover something like cancer or being hit by a bus but not expected and routine expenses.  That change would dramatically reduce 1) the cost of health insurance and 2) the price of health care.

 

Prices will adjust to the ability of people to afford.   Part of the price reduction will come from the efficiency of first party payer.  If the doctor doesn't need a billing department to contact insurance companies to secure payment, that cost can be eliminated and the price of all procedures drops.  The insurance companies will likewise shrink on account of vastly fewer claims.  With the current system, the patient is only concerned with the co-pay and any expenses that might accrue directly to them.  There is no point in haggling to get a better deal.  First party payer will end the $30 aspirin and other over-inflated charges.  This free market approach will be bumpy but no worse than Obamacare has been and far more beneficial.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment

 

Health care is a power that was not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.  As such, it needs to return to the States or to the people.  Of course, government doesn't like surrendering tax dollars or regulatory power, so I doubt the free market will get the contract.  The replacement may be less odious, but will still be beyond the legal authority of the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And there you have the 10th Amendment.  Does it have meaning anymore?  The very statement of the amendment presupposes that the Congress has been delegated powers that are enumerated within the Constitution.  Anything not enumerated is to be left to the States and the people.  It is a very simple amendment that speaks volumes.  Like the 2nd Amendment, it is loathed by those who seek to empower the central government.  Health care, retirement savings, education, and countless other aspects of life are nowhere listed in the Constitution and yet, despite the clear limit set by the 10th Amendment, government has seized control to varying degrees in all of these areas.

I have found myself asking those who favor Obamacare to explain what limit there is on government if it can do this?  Can it tax people who don't have gym memberships with the goal of addressing the obesity problem?  The reply is generally a roll of the eyes, as if my question is foolish.  Obviously, government isn't going to tax us if we don't get gym memberships.  How do you know?  What limits it from doing just that?  The 10th is a bright red line of a limit and it was breached more than a century ago.  Like the human appendix, it is a vestigial part of the Constitution that no longer has a function.  However, it was never repealed and could resume its purpose to limit the government.

The Founders had intended for We the People to be the final arbiters of Constitutionality.  They provided that we could vote the bums out and, failing that, also provided that we had guns to establish new government just as they had.